Ecological Risk Assessment: Consensus Workshop Islands ERA...lons) of Venezuelan crude oil (Furrial) approximately five miles north of Vir-gin Gorda Island, under conditions which

Ecological Risk Assessment: Consensus Workshop

Environmental Tradeoffs Associated With

Oil Spill Response Technologies

U.S. and British Virgin Islands


Environmental Tradeoffs Associated With

Oil Spill Response Technologies


A Report to US Coast Guard District 7

Don Aurand and Gina Coelho (Compilers)

Ecosystem Management & Assoc., Inc.

Ecosystem Management & Associates, Inc.Report 03-03

ii

REPORT AVAILABILITY

Copies of this report and supporting materials are available on compact disk from the follow-ing address:

Commandant (G-MOR-2) United States Coast Guard 2100 Second Street, SW Washington, DC 20593

202-267-0518

CITATION

Suggested Citation:

Aurand, D. and G. Coelho (Compilers). 2003. Ecological Risk Assessment: Consen-sus Workshop. Environmental Tradeoffs Associated With Oil Spill Response Tech-nologies. U.S. and British Virgin Islands. A report to US Coast Guard District 7. Eco-system Management & Associates, Inc., Lusby, MD 20657. Report 03-03, 34 pages.

SPONSOR This report was prepared under Purchase Order No. DTCGG8-03-P-MER242 for US Coast Guard Headquarters (G-MOR-2), 2100 2nd Street, SW, Washington, DC 21593.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................1 1.0 Objectives of the U.S. and British Virgin Islands Workshop ..........................................3 1.1 Background and Process ..........................................................................................3 1.2 Sponsor’s Objectives ...............................................................................................4 1.3 Participants and Responsibilities .............................................................................4 2.0 Overview of Workshop Events.........................................................................................7 3.0 Exercise Scenario and Basic Analytical Information .......................................................9 3.1 Exercise Scenario.....................................................................................................9 3.2 Geographic Area of Concern ...................................................................................9 3.3 Resources of Concern ..............................................................................................9 3.4 Conceptual Model....................................................................................................9 3.5 Modeling Results ...................................................................................................13 4.0 The Results of the Risk Analysis Process.......................................................................19 4.1 Results for the Virgin Islands Scenario ....................................................................20 4.2 Results of a Review of the Molasses Reef (Florida Keys) Scenario ........................21 5.0 Summary Risk Analysis Results and Lessons Learned ..................................................27 6.0 References.......................................................................................................................29 Appendix A: Participants........................................................................................................31

iv

v

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Description Page 3.1 Results from the NOAA scenario modeling for the Virgin Islands surface oil slick trajectory ..............................................................................................15 3.2 Results from the NOAA modeling for the Virgin Islands scenario for dispersant use at 80% efficiency showing average dispersed oil concentrations (in ppm) from 0 to 1 meter and surface oil remaining after application.............................................................................................16 3.3 Results from the NOAA modeling for the Virgin Islands scenario for dispersant use at 80% efficiency showing average dispersed oil concentrations (in ppm) from 0 to 5 meters and surface oil remaining after application .............................................................................................17 3.4 Results from the NOAA modeling for the Virgin Islands scenario for dispersant use at 80% efficiency showing average dispersed oil concentrations (in ppm) in the bottom 1 meter and surface oil remaining after application .............................................................................................18 4.1 Definition of levels of concern for the Virgin Islands assessment .................................19 4.2 Detailed focus group risk analysis results for natural recovery. ....................................23 4.3 Detailed focus group risk analysis results for on-water mechanical

recovery..........................................................................................................................24 4.4 Detailed focus group risk analysis results for dispersant application

at 80% effectiveness.......................................................................................................25 4.5 Detailed focus group risk analysis results for on-shore mechanical

recovery..........................................................................................................................26 5.1 Final relative risk matrix for the Virgin Islands risk assessment....................................27

LIST OF TABLES Table Description Page 3.1 Habitat table for the Virgin Islands risk assessment ......................................................10 3.2 Estimated oil budget in US gallons for the Virgin Islands oil spill scenario with and without dispersant use .....................................................................................14 4.1 Consensus exposure thresholds of concern (in ppm) for dispersed oil in the water column...................................................................................................20

vi

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND ACRONYMS Term Abbreviation, Symbol, or Acronym Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills .......................................................................... ADIOS Barrel..................................................................................................................................... bbl British Virgin Islands.......................................................................................................... BVI Clean Caribbean Cooperative ............................................................................................ CCC Ecological Risk Assessment .............................................................................................. ERA Environmental Protection Agency......................................................................................EPA Environmental Sensitivity Index.......................................................................................... ESI Fish and Wildlife Service................................................................................................... FWS General NOAA Oil Modeling Environment................................................................GNOME International Maritime Organization ..................................................................................IMO International Tanker Owners Pollution Fund ................................................................. ITOPF National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ......................................................NOAA Office of Response (USCG HQ)...................................................................................G-MOR Parts per million.................................................................................................................. ppm Regional Response Team....................................................................................................RRT Scientific Support Coordinator ........................................................................................... SSC Square Kilometer .................................................................................................................km2 Square Mile...........................................................................................................................mi2 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ...........................................................................................TPH United Nations Environment Program.............................................................................UNEP United States Coast Guard ...............................................................................................USCG United States Virgin Islands .............................................................................................USVI

viii

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Ecosystem Management & Associates, Inc. and the sponsors of this project extend their thanks to all those who participated in the risk assessment workshop and the associated training sessions. Special recognition is extended to Mr. Brad Benggio (NOAA SSC, Miami) for organizing and planning the workshop and to Dr. Jacqui Michel (RPI, Inc.), Dr. Alan Mearns (NOAA HAZMAT) and Mr. Charlie Henry (NOAA SSC, New Orleans) for their assistance in developing the scenario, background material, and training presentations on oil spill impacts and dispersants for the workshop. In addition, we would like to thank Ruth Yender (NOAA SSC Pacific) for her presentation on seafood safety, Mr. Felix Lopez (US FWS) for assistance in developing the resources at risk matrix, Dr. Karen Purnell (ITOPF) for her presentation on recent international spills, and Ms Christine Lane (CCC) for her pres-entation on oil spill response equipment and capabilities. Modeling support, which was criti-cal to the workshop, was provided by Mr. Glen Watabayashi and Ms Caitlin O’Conner (NOAA HAZMAT). Contractor support to assist in the planning and facilitation of the work-shops, and in the preparation of the report was provided by the Office of Response, Head-quarters, USCG (G-MOR) under contract DTCG G8-03-P-MER242. The support and guid-ance of the Project Manager, LCDR Mark Cunningham and of Mr. Robert Pond of that office is gratefully acknowledged.

x

1


Environmental Tradeoffs Associated With Oil Spill Response Technologies


Executive Summary In mid-June 2003, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) District 7 spon-sored a four-day workshop to provide oil spill response training based on the relative risk to natural resources from various oil spill response options (on-water mechanical recovery, dispersant application and shoreline cleanup) in comparison to natural recovery. Representatives from various government agencies in the United States, the US Virgin Islands, the British Virgin Islands and seven other countries participated in the meeting. The discussions were based on a spill scenario involving the release of 5,000 barrels (210,000 gal-lons) of Venezuelan crude oil (Furrial) approximately five miles north of Vir-gin Gorda Island, under conditions which threatened the coastline of several islands in the U.S. and British Virgin Islands, as well as a variety of valuable subtidal habitats. After the participants received briefings on the expected re-sults of the spill with and without response options they were asked to discuss the risks and benefits of these response options to the habitats and natural re-sources of the area. For these discussions, the participants were divided into four focus groups and were asked to develop relative risk scores for the vari-ous alternatives, using standard analytical protocols outlined in the USCG guidebook entitled “Developing Consensus Ecological Risk Assessments: Environmental Protection in Oil Spill Response Planning. A Guidebook.” The scores from the four groups were then compared and a composite risk matrix developed which represented the overall consensus of the entire group. At the conclusion of the meeting, the group developed a list of lessons learned and recommendations for the RRT and the international oil spill response community in the Caribbean region. In general, participants concluded that on-water mechanical recovery was unlikely to provide much protection for shoreline habitats in the scenario under consideration. Dispersant use, if effec-tive, did provide such protection, but with some increased risk to coral habitat. This risk was limited because much of the area where dispersants were ap-plied was relatively deep. The participants recommended reexamining the cur-rent dispersant preauthorization limits to see if they could be made less restric-tive.

ERA Consensus Workshop – U.S. Virgin Islands

2

ERA Consensus Workshop – Virgin Islands

3

1.0 Objectives of the U.S. and British Virgin Islands

Workshop 1.1 Background and Process Since 1998, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has been sponsoring efforts to use a com-parative risk methodology to provide training about oil spill response options. Interest in se-lecting response options based on a risk/benefit analysis goes back even further, but the cur-rent effort is different in that it emphasizes a consensus-building approach to evaluate risks and benefits. Headquarters, USCG (G-MOR) has sponsored the development of a guidebook on this process (Aurand et al., 2000). The document, entitled “Developing Consensus Ecological Risk Assessments: Environmental Protection in Oil Spill Response Planning. A Guidebook” is available from G-MOR, or can be downloaded from the contractor’s web site at www.ecosystem-management.net. The process is designed to help planners compare the ecological consequences of re-sponse options, especially in nearshore or estuarine situations. This is particularly important for consideration of dispersants and in-situ burning, which present difficult analytical issues. It is focused on ecological “trade offs” or cross-resource comparisons. Through a structured analytical approach the participants find “common ground” for evaluation of impacts and de-velop a defensible logic to support their conclusions. This process is consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) guidelines (US EPA, 1998), but emphasizes development of group consensus among stakeholders. The proc-ess uses a series of analytical tools specifically developed for use in a group environment. It is designed to be a training and planning tool, and it should not be used during an actual event. The knowledge gained by participants in the process, however, will facilitate real-time decision-making. The training usually involves two 2 or 3-day workshops led by a facilitator. The ideal size is 25 to 30 participants, including spill response managers, natural resource managers and trustees, subject matter experts, and non-governmental organizations. The goal is to achieve consensus interpretations of the potential risks and benefits associated with selected response options based on a scenario developed by the local sponsor of the training. The time between the two workshops is used for the participants to research issues of concern before they develop their final conclusions. The process is heavily focused on achieving a consensus interpretation of the available technical information. It is very important to have a broad rep-resentation of the potential stakeholders in the decision process; otherwise the results may not be accepted by all of the groups who will be concerned if a spill occurs. The workshop process includes three primary phases - problem formulation, analysis, and risk charac-terization. Details of the process are described in the Guidebook. In the first phase, problem formulation, participants in the Virgin Islands workshop were:

• presented by the sponsor with a predesigned scenario for analysis,

ERA Consensus Workshop –Virgin Islands

4

• approved a table that summarized the resources of concern, • discussed appropriate assessment thresholds, and • modified a conceptual model (a matrix defining relative ecological risk) de-

veloped in previous workshops to guide the subsequent analysis.

In the analytical phase, participants characterized exposure and ecological effects. The conceptual model developed in the problem formulation phase directed the analysis us-ing standard templates and simple analytical tools that define and summarize the analysis for each resource of concern and each response option. Finally, the participants completed a risk characterization. During this phase, par-ticipants interpreted their results in terms of the costs and benefits of each response option to overall environmental protection as compared to natural recovery (i.e., baseline). 1.2 Sponsor’s Objectives This series of workshops was sponsored by USCG District 7 (D7) (Miami, FL) in support of oil spill response planning. The overall purpose of the project was to evaluate the ecological resource impacts of spilled oil and oil spill response operations in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), with a special emphasis on the consequences of dispersant use. Since any oil spill (especially large spills) in the Caribbean can pose a risk to multiple countries, a secon-dary objective was to foster cooperation and provide training for oil spill response profes-sionals from countries throughout the Caribbean Basin. The results of this ERA process are intended to improve oil spill response strategies and to enhance existing oil spill contingency planning. There are tradeoffs to every response decision. Exercises such as this are intended to help identify those natural resources at risk during a spill and to address the benefits and inherent tradeoffs associated with the different spill response tools. Resource trustee consultation is essential to identifying those tradeoff priorities that drive spill response strategy. In the spirit of promoting as much pre-spill consultation and tradeoff dialogue as possible, an ERA training session was provided prior to the evaluation of the scenario. It has been the experience of the workshop organizers in earlier exercises that once participants are familiar with the ERA process and its methodology, resource and re-sponse agency stakeholders are better able to engage in effective risk assessment and tradeoff identification for pre-spill and spill-specific consultations. The result is a better understand-ing of resource trustee and response agency concerns, more timely and effective response decisions, and greater resource protection and recovery. 1.3 Participants and Responsibilities A total of 41 individuals attended the workshop. Their names and affiliations are pro-vided in Appendix A. These 41 people represented a wide range of organizations (both na-tional and international) and were divided into four focus groups for the purpose of the work-shops, as indicated in the tables in Appendix A. The scenario used in the exercise was devel-oped by USCG D7 staff, with the assistance of the NOAA HAZMAT staff, who also sup-ported the oil spill fate modeling effort.


5

Besides the US, the USVI, and the British Virgin Islands (BVI), seven other Carib-bean nations and two international organizations sent representatives (as listed in Appendix A). Because of the international nature of the meeting, many of the participants would not be involved in oil spill response decisions in the area of the exercise scenario, and therefore conclusions developed at the workshop are not necessarily an accurate reflection of local stakeholder opinions. However, because of the interdependence and vulnerability of Carib-bean nations to oil spills it is critical to develop a common knowledge base to support good decisions.


6


7

2.0 Overview of Workshop Events The following is a summary of the activities that took place in the workshop for the Virgin Islands. Additional detail on the process itself is provided in the guidebook referenced in Section 1.1. Only one workshop was held, from 17 to 20 June, 2003. It was sponsored by USCG D7. The first day and a half consisted of a series of training lectures about dispersant applica-tion and use, monitoring protocols and environmental consequences. In support of these presentations, the USCG and NOAA HAZMAT staff compiled a compact disk (CD) which contained copies of the training presentations and selected oil spill publications. Copies of the CD were provided to the attendees at the beginning of the workshop. The material in-cluded on the CD is listed in the references (Section 6) and identified with an asterisk. Appli-cation issues were covered by Christine Lane of the Clean Caribbean Cooperative (CCC), while Alan Mearns, Charlie Henry and Ruth Yender of NOAA and Jacqui Michel of Re-search Planning, Inc. reviewed environmental issues and monitoring protocols, along with examples of dispersant use in other locations. Karen Purnell of the International Tanker Owners Pollution Fund (ITOPF) provided a brief overview concerning recent international response operations where ITOPF staff were involved. When the presentations were completed, Dr. Aurand of EM&A presented an over-view of the ERA process which was going to be used by the participants. The participants then reviewed the scenario, discussed and approved the previously assigned risk factors asso-ciated with the response options, and defined the geographic area of concern and defined the habitats or ecological communities that were present. The latter information had been com-piled into a table of habitats, subhabitats, and representative species by the meeting staff (with the assistance of Mr. Felix Lopez of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)) prior to the workshop in order to expedite the meeting. With minor modification, participants adopted the list for use during their evaluation of the response options under consideration. When this was complete, they approved a risk ranking matrix, with scales based on recovery time and the proportion of the resource affected, to use to evaluate potential impacts. When these initial tasks were completed, the participants were divided into smaller “focus groups” (in this case, four) and used the risk ranking matrix to evaluate their “level of concern” for potential impacts in each of the habitats for the “natural recovery” (i.e. no re-sponse) option. This option is always evaluated first because it establishes the baseline against which all other response options are compared. The focus groups independently used the alphanumeric designations to determine their level of concern, which was then summa-rized in a habitat/response option matrix. When analysis for natural recovery was completed by the four focus groups, their re-sults were compared and discussed to determine if the groups were being consistent in their approach. This process was hindered somewhat by the diversity of participants and their lev-els of experience. It was particularly difficult for the participants to define the use of “local” or “regional” for populations of concern given the large number of islands and international boundaries. In general, however, the participants viewed “local” as the islands immediately in the vicinity of the spill trajectory and “regional” as the greater Caribbean. While the groups attempted to resolve as many differences as possible in their scores for natural recov-ery (and later, the response options) they did not attempt to achieve total consensus, and so group scores are not identical. When the groups had significantly different initial conclu-


8

sions, this review of natural recovery was used to make sure that areas of confusion or lim-ited data were identified and addressed. Once this was completed, the participants reviewed the response options to be in-cluded and identified issues related to each option that they wanted to discuss before com-pleting the risk ranking. When the relevant questions had been discussed, the participants re-viewed the three response options selected for analysis (on water mechanical recovery, on shore mechanical recovery and use of dispersants), and then the four focus groups completed the risk ranking process for each response option. After the evaluation of the Virgin Islands spill scenario was completed, the partici-pants were asked to briefly consider a scenario from a previous workshop held in the Florida Keys (Aurand, 2003). This second scenario involved a spill much closer to shore and in shal-lower water and thus represented a much greater threat to shallow subtidal habitats (espe-cially coral reefs). Participants were asked to consider that scenario, and then decide if their conclusions about dispersant use would have been different for that situation. At the conclusion of the meeting the entire group developed “lessons learned” and made a list of recommendations for implementation in future oil spill response planning op-tions for the USVI, and for international discussions about cooperative oil spill response in the Caribbean region.


9

3.0 Exercise Scenario and Basic Analytical Information

3.1 Exercise Scenario The participants were presented with a spill scenario designed to focus on the envi-ronmental decisions that need to be made when an oil spill threatens the shoreline of the USVI, the BVI, and Puerto Rico. The scenario involved a collision during which a tanker suffered a partial loss of cargo. The collision occurred on April 13, 2004 at 16° 35’ north, 64° 64’ west, approximately 10 miles north of the island of Virgin Gorda in the British West In-dies. The cargo was a Venezuelan crude oil (Furrial). Initially no oil was spilled, but there was the threat of a release and so response re-sources were mobilized. At 6:00 AM local time on April 15, 2004 there was an initial very small discharge, followed approximately two hours later by the nearly instantaneous loss of approximately 5,000 barrels (bbls) or 210,000 gallons, after which time the leak was secured. Throughout the event the wind was from the north-east at 15 knots. 3.2 Geographic Area of Concern The general local area of concern was the immediate vicinity of the USVI and the BVI. For some resources there was a regional area of concern, which was defined as the greater Caribbean area. Resources were defined as either “local” or “regional” depending on their distribution, population characteristics and recovery pattern. This information was valu-able in interpreting differences in the risk rankings. 3.3 Resources of Concern Prior to the workshop the facilitators, with the assistance of Charlie Henry of NOAA and Felix Lopez of the US FWS, reviewed the resource table from the Florida Keys ERA (Aurand, 2003). With minor modification, that table was considered to be appropriate for use in this assessment. The proposed table was reviewed with the participants, changed slightly to reflect differences in the coral habitats of the islands compared to the Florida Keys, and then approved for use in the assessment. The final result is presented as Table 3.1. 3.4 Conceptual Model During discussions about the general analytical process, the participants decided that establishing a detailed model was not necessary for their purposes. They agreed to use the list of seven hazards (air pollution, aqueous exposure, physical trauma, oiling/smothering, ther-mal, waste and indirect) developed in the San Francisco Bay workshop (Pond et al., 2000) to evaluate each of the proposed response options. The list of response options, combined with the resource table, forms the basis for the cells of the conceptual model. The interactions be-tween the two are defined by the hazards.


10

Table 3.1 Habitat Table for the Virgin Islands Risk Assessment

Habitat Subhabitat Resource Category Example Organisms

Mammals cetaceans, West Indian manatee

Birds Frigate birds, tropic birds, pelican, diving birds, rafting birds

Fish pelagic fishAquatic Arthropods N/AMollusks pteropodsPlankton phytoplankton, fish eggs and

larvae, copepods, coral larvaeReptiles sea turtlesMammals batsBirds ospreyReptiles geckos, iguana, boas, anolesVegetation red, white and black mangrove,

macroalgaeMammals West Indian manateeBirds great blue heron, willets, pelican,

egret, shorebirdsFish bonefish, crevalle jack, mullet,

sheepshead, killifish, snook, tarpon, snapper

Aquatic Arthropods barnacles, amphipods, grass shrimp

Mollusks clams, oysters, mussels, snails

Epifauna algae, sponges, bryozoansVegetation macroalgae, button treeBirds boobies, terns, frigate birds,

tropic birdsAquatic Arthropods crabsMollusks topshell snail, musselsEpifauna sponges, sea urchins, sea squirt

Birds shore birdsReptiles sea turtlesMollusks Donax clams

Intertidal

Sand Beach

Water Surface

Rocky Shores

Mangrove Forest

Terrestrial


11

Table 3.1 Habitat Table for the Virgin Islands Risk Assessment (continued)

Habitat Subhabitat Resource Group Example Species

Vegetation macroalgae, sea grasses

Birds shore birds, wading birdsFish bonefish, mullet, tarpon, snook,

other juvenile fishAquatic Arthropods crabs, barnacles, lobster,

snapping shrimpCoelenterates cup coral, fire coral, star coral,

anemonesMollusks queen conch, snails, clams,

mussels, octopusEpifauna sponges, sea urchins, sea squirt

Vegetation turtle grass, shoal grass, Halophila

Mammals West Indian manateeBirds heron, brown pelican, double-

crested cormorantFish snappers, grunts, barracuda,

grey snapper, gobies, pipefish, eel, spot

Aquatic Arthropods pink shrimp, spiny lobster, amphipods, grass shrimp, blue crab

Coelenterates cup coral, anemonesMollusks queen conch, snails, clams,

mussels, octopusReptiles green, loggerhead, hawksbill

sea turtlesEpifauna algae, sponges, bryozoans,

algae, snails, sea urchins, sea stars

Vegetation macroalgaeFish snappers, grunts, barracuda,

reef sharks, butterfly fish, wrasses, parrotfish

Aquatic Arthropods spiny lobsters, snapping shrimp, amphipods, crabs

Coelenterates elkhorn coral, fire coral, star coral, staghorn coral, brain coral

Mollusks snails, clams, octopusReptiles green, loggerhead and

hawksbill sea turtlesEpifauna algae, sponges, bryozoans,


Shallow Coral Reef Community (<5 m)

Subtidal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Reef FlatsIntertidal (continued)


12

Table 3.1 Habitat Table for the Virgin Islands Risk Assessment (concluded)

Habitat Subhabitat Resource Group Example Species

Birds macroalgaeFish snappers, grunts, barracuda,

reef sharks, butterfly fish, wrasses, parrotfish

Aquatic Arthropods spiny lobsters, snapping shrimp, amphipods, crabs

Coelenterates elkhorn coral, fire coral, star coral, staghorn coral, brain coral

Mollusks snails, clams, octopusReptiles green, loggerhead, leatherback

and hawksbill sea turtlesEpifauna algae, sponges, bryozoans,


Mammals West Indian manateeBirds black-legged kittiwake, northern

gannetFish snappers, grunts, barracuda,

eel, seatrout, spot, snappers, grunts, sharks, butterfly fish, wrasses, parrotfish

Aquatic Arthropods pink shrimpMollusks squidPlankton fish eggs and larvae,

invertebrate eggs and larvae, copepods, diatoms, green algae

Reptiles green, loggerhead and Kemp's ridley sea turtles

Mammals bottlenose dolphins, Risso's dolphins, West Indian manatee

Birds common loon, black-legged kittiwake, northern gannet

Fish snappers, grunts, barracuda, eel, seatrout, spot, snappers, grunts, sharks, butterfly fish, wrasses, parrotfish

Aquatic Arthropods pink shrimpMollusks squidPlankton fish eggs and larvae,

invertebrate eggs and larvae, copepods, diatoms, green algae

Reptiles green, loggerhead and Kemp's ridley sea turtles

Deep Coral Reef Community

Subtidal (continued)

Deep Water (>5 m)

Shallow Water (<5 m)Water Column


13

3.5 Modeling Results The NOAA HAZMAT Modeling Group used the basic information in the scenario to develop a surface trajectory and a dispersed oil trajectory analysis for the workshop. Basic weathering information was calculated using the Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills (ADIOS) II program for the oil under consideration. Trajectory calculations were made using the General NOAA Oil Modeling Environment (GNOME) model. The model results were presented as short video clips prepared using QuickTime® software. Table 3.2 presents a fate table for the oil with and without dispersant use over the five days (120 hours) of the simulation. Dispersant use, at either 80 or 40 percent efficiency, would significantly reduce, but not prevent, shoreline oiling. While the trajectory model was run for 120 hours, Figures 3.2 through 3.4 show se-lected results for 4 times during the first 73 hours or less. These snapshots were selected to illustrate the period of highest potential risk, but do not fully describe the results. Quick-Time® movies of the entire spill trajectories are included on the CD which contains this re-port, and should be reviewed for more detailed information. Under the conditions in this scenario, an untreated surface slick would rapidly move to the southwest, making its initial landfall on small islands east of Tortola and then on the central northern coast of Tortola approximately 24 hours after the release (Figure 3.1). For the next 24 hours the slick moves between the remaining islands, heavily oiling the rest of Tortola, and the north and east cost of Jost Van Dyke. The slick reaches St. John and St. Thomas within 36 hours, with the north coast of both being heavily oiled, as are the smaller islands along the trajectory. Snapshots of the estimated average concentrations of dispersed oil as parts per million (ppm) of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the top one meter of the water column through time with 80% dispersant efficiency are shown in Figure 3.2. Immediately after ap-plication, maximum average concentrations are 5 to 10 ppm in a small area (approximately 1 mi2) near the center of the plume. Over the next ten hours, these concentrations decreased and after ten hours maximum concentrations were 1 to 5 ppm, with the majority of the top one meter concentrations being 1 ppm or less. No longer driven by the wind, the dispersed oil plume remains to the east of Jost Van Dyke and moves slowly to the north as it dilutes. At the end of the model run (120 hours) the plume was still discernable, and while most concen-trations were below 1 ppm, there were small areas where concentrations were in the range of 1 to 5 ppm. Figure 3.3 shows snapshots of the estimated average concentration of dispersed oil in the top five meters of the water column (80% efficiency). In this case the plume trajectory is essentially the same as in Figure 3.2, but concentrations do not exceed 5 ppm, and the major-ity predicted throughout the 120 hours of the simulation are less than 1 ppm. Figure 3.4 shows snapshots of the estimated average concentration of dispersed oil in the bottom one meter of the water column (80% efficiency). This would represent the ap-proximate exposure of corals and other benthic organisms. In this case, only very limited ar-eas are exposed to any dispersed oil, and then only concentrations below 0.5 ppm for very short periods (usually one to three hours for any given location). Data available to the participants included trajectory analysis for both surface and subsurface oil, oil budgets with and without dispersant use, habitat maps, information on spe-cies of concern, toxicological information, depth profiles of modeled dispersed oil concentra-


14

tions and also plots showing the extent to which consensus thresholds of concern (see Table 4.1) were exceeded or not. Table 3.2 Estimated Oil Budget in US gallons for the Virgin Islands Oil Spill Scenario

With and Without Dispersant Use

Hours After Release Floating Beached

Evaporated and

DispersedTotal

0 210,000 0 0 210,00024 165,228 84 44,688 210,00048 60,837 81,236 67,927 210,00072 15,645 115,836 78,519 210,00096 7,224 117,222 85,554 210,000

120 4,851 114,996 90,153 210,000


Evaporated and

DispersedTotal

0 210,000 0 0 210,00024 165,228 84 44,688 210,00048 37,821 50,526 121,653 210,00072 9,303 72,114 128,541 209,95896 4,830 72,051 132,951 209,832

120 2,877 71,358 135,324 209,559


Evaporated and

DispersedTotal

0 210,000 0 0 210,00024 165,228 84 44,688 210,00048 15,624 19,677 174,699 210,00072 3,885 28,518 177,576 209,97996 1,785 28,938 178,857 209,580

120 1,092 28,413 179,739 209,244

No Use of Dispersant

Use Dispersant at 24 Hours at 40% Effectiveness

Use Dispersant at 24 Hours at 80% Effectiveness


15

A: 6 Hours (End of Release) B: 25 Hours (Initial Dispersion)

C: 49 Hours (D + 24 Hours) D: 73 Hours (D + 48 Hours) Figure 3.1 Results from the NOAA scenario modeling for the Virgin Islands surface oil

slick trajectory


16

A: 6 Hours B: 25 Hours (Initial Dispersion)

C: 49 Hours (D + 24 Hours) D: 73 Hours (D + 48 Hours) Key: Light green <0.5 ppm Medium green 0.5 - 1 ppm Light blue 1 - 5 ppm Dark blue 5 - 10 ppm Pink 10 - 50 ppm Red >50 ppm Figure 3.2 Results from the NOAA modeling for the Virgin Islands scenario for dispersant

use at 80% efficiency showing average dispersed oil concentrations (in ppm) from 0 to 1 meter and surface oil remaining after application


17



use at 80% efficiency showing average dispersed oil concentrations (in ppm) from 0 to 5 meters and surface oil remaining after application


18



use at 80% efficiency showing average dispersed oil concentrations (in ppm) in the bottom 1 meter and surface oil remaining after application


19

4.0 The Results of the Risk Analysis Process The risk analysis matrix used by the focus groups is presented in Figure 4.1. Each fo-cus group was tasked with reviewing the scenario, the modeling results, information on ex-posure and sensitivity to oil and dispersed oil, and basic life history and distribution informa-tion to estimate the percent of each resource affected and the time of recovery. In the initial evaluation the groups used the various alphanumeric codes to rate the level of concern. At the end of the workshop the various color codes were used to develop summary levels of concern.

RECOVERY

> 25 yrs

(1) (VERY SLOW)

11-25 yrs (2)

6-10 yrs (3) 1-5 yrs (4) < 1 yr (5)

(RAPID)

> 50% (A) 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A

30-50% (B) 1B 2B 3B 4B 5B

10-30% (C) 1C 2C 3C 4C 5C

% o

f RES

OU

RC

ES A

FFEC

TED

<10 % (D) 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D

Legend: Red cells represent a “high” level of concern, yellow cells represent a “moderate” level of concern, and green cells represent a “limited” level of concern.

Figure 4.1 Definition of levels of concern for the Virgin Islands assessment Using the ranking matrix requires that the participants develop estimates of the pro-portion of the resource affected and how long it will take the resource to recover. A key fac-tor in determining whether or not a resource is affected is to apply thresholds at which im-pacts, either acute or chronic, would be expected to occur for the various resource groups un-der consideration. This perhaps the most difficult part of the consensus process, and it has been discussed in detail at all of the workshops. In this case, as in other workshops, very conservative assumptions were presented by the facilitator and accepted by the participants. For shoreline resources and habitats, damage was assumed if oil contacted the habitat. Impacts to birds, mammals, and turtles on the water surface were assumed if there was a high probability of any contact with the surface oil slick. The nature of these impacts was developed during the focus group discussions. The only thresholds which can be generally quantified are those related to aquatic toxicity. Table 4.1, reproduced from the Guidebook, presents a series of concentration thresholds which were made available to the participants. These values are based on a summary of published toxicity information initially developed


20

based on a summary of published toxicity information initially developed during the early workshops. It is important to keep in mind that the participants used the information available to them to develop levels of concern about the risk, and the risk scores do not represent a pre-diction of actual impacts. Instead they represent a consensus on the part of the participants that such consequences were likely to occur under the scenario under consideration. Table 4.1 Consensus Exposure Thresholds of Concern (in ppm) for Dispersed Oil in the

Water Column

Exposure Level of Concern

Protective of Sensi-tive Life Stages

More Protective

Criteria

Protective of Adult

Fish

More Protective

Criteria

Adult Crus-tacea/

Invertebrates

More Protective

Criteria

Low <5 <1-5 <10 <10 <5 <5 Medium 5-10 5-10 10-100 10-100 5-50 5-50 0-3

hours High >10 >10 >100 >100 >50 >50

Low <1 <0.5 <2 <0.5 <2 <0.5 Medium 1-5 .5-5 2-10 .5-10 2-5 .5-5 0-24

hours High >5 >5 >10 >10 >5 >5

Low <1 <0.5 <1 <0.5 <1 <0.5 Medium 1-5 .0-5 1-5 .5-1 0-96

hours High >1 >0.5 >5 >5 >5 >1 4.1 Results for the Virgin Islands Scenario The detailed results from the four focus groups for natural recovery are shown in Fig-ure 4.2. No group rated the risk from the oil spill to any habitat as “high” for this scenario. This ranking was primarily a function of the size of the spill (5,000 bbls), which was recog-nized as a dangerous, but not overwhelming release. This was the first workshop (out of eight held to date) where no “high” risk scores occurred for natural recovery. The concerns identi-fied for the habitats with no active response (natural recovery) are defined below. This is the baseline which was used in evaluating the consequences of the response options. There are very few terrestrial species that might come into contact with the oil, and no group viewed this as a serious issue. Moderate or moderate/low levels of concern existed for the water surface, rocky shores, sand beaches, reef flats, submerged aquatic vegetation beds, and especially the shallow coral reef community. There was a low/moderate level of concern for mangroves because the trajectory generally did not threaten large mangrove areas. There was agreement that in other locations this could have been a serious concern. The concerns for the rocky shores centered on potential risk to mollusks, while the potential presence of sea turtles was the key risk factor for sandy beaches. Initially, Group 2 ranked sea turtles as a high concern for beaches, but after discussion by all participants about the actual distribution of turtles (very few nesting beaches) in the area reduced their score. The risk to organisms on


21

the water surface was due to potential impacts to birds, and also to sea turtles. The most con-sistent concern was for coral communities near the shore. Group 2 felt that there were no true “reef flats” in the vicinity of the spill, and so did not score that category. The other three groups felt that very shallow reef areas could be viewed as reef flats and ranked them as a moderate/low concern. All four groups were concerned that shallow, nearshore coral com-munities would be affected, both by dissolved or physically dispersed oil, or by sediment contaminated with oil that might erode from the shoreline. Organisms in the water column and benthic communities at depths greater than five meters were considered to be at low risk. Under the given scenario, on-water mechanical recovery (Figure 4.3) was not viewed by any group as providing significant ecological benefit, although all participants agreed that any oil collected would be worthwhile. The overall consensus was that the amount recovered would be in line with that observed historically, probably less than 10 percent, which did not reduce their concerns for shallow water and shoreline habitats. Some groups felt that on-water mechanical recovery, if done improperly, could increase the potential risk to mangrove forests and sand beaches, and could pose a hazard to birds or turtles on the water surface. Dispersant use was evaluated (Figure 4.4) and the consensus scores indicate a re-duced level of concern for the water surface, mangrove forests, rocky shores, and sand beaches without an increased concern for shallow coral reefs, and a very small increase in concern for deep coral communities and the upper water column (both remained in the low level of concern category). The groups all reached this conclusion because the dispersant ap-plication was in an area of fairly deep water where dilution was judged to be rapid enough that the risk to the water column and deep benthic community was low, based on the data in Table 4.1. Since some oil would still reach shore (see Table 3.2), there was still concern for shoreline habitats, albeit reduced. This was the only option of the three investigated that sig-nificantly reduced the risk scores. On-shore mechanical recovery (Figure 4.5) was viewed as a necessary activity, and one that could reduce the potential for long-term consequences, but it was considered unlikely to reduce the overall level of concern, which was primarily driven by the initial im-pacts of oiling. The exception to this conclusion was for turtle nesting beaches and bird nesting areas. While these were not common in the area, and were only seasonally at risk, there was a consensus that cleaning such areas, and adjacent areas that could contaminate them, was very important and could prevent subsequent damage. 4.2 Results of a Review of the Molasses Reef (Florida

Keys) Scenario Near the end of the meeting the participants were given a brief overview of the Mo-lasses Reef scenario used in an earlier workshop in the Florida Keys (Aurand, 2003). That scenario was closer to shore, in much shallower water, and was very close to valuable coral habitat. At the same time extensive mangrove forests were also at risk. After a review of the basic scenario and the spill trajectory results (for dispersed and surface oil) the groups were asked to review the same four options and decide what they would recommend as a response. Details of the scenario are available in Aurand (2003). Despite concerns for the risk to the coral communities, all four groups recommended that all three options be used, with the em-phasis on dispersant application and on shoreline protection. There was a strong consensus that extensive monitoring would be important during the dispersant operation, since the area


22

was so shallow. Two of the groups felt that dispersant application should be limited to only the deeper areas, or to areas as far offshore as possible, and they recommended that resource maps be used to avoid the areas of coral in the more shallow areas. All agreed, however, that the potential long-term risk to the mangrove forests appeared to be more significant than the short term risk to the coral community, provided that the dispersant application was targeted as much as possible.

Habitats Terrestrial

Subhabitats Rocky Shores Sand Beach

Response OptionsM

amm

als

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Rep

tiles

Vege

tatio

n

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Bird

s

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Bird

s

Rep

tiles

Mol

lusk

s

Vege

tatio

n

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Habitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L5D 4B 5D 5D 5D 5C 2D 5D 4D 5D 4D NA 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 5D 5D 5D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D

2D 4D 4D 4D 5D 4DHabitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

4D 4B 5D NA NA 5B 2D 5D 5D 5D 4D NA 4C 5D 5D 4D 4C 5D 4C 4B 4B 4B 4C 2D 5D NA NA NA NA NA NA NA4D 5D 4D 4C 2D NA

Habitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L3D 4D 5D 5D 5D 5D 2D 4D 4D 4D 2D NA 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4B 4C 4B 4B 4B 4D 2D 4C 4D 4D 4D 4D 3D 4D 4D

4D 4D 2D 4B 3D 3DHabitat Scaling R L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

5D 3C 5D NA 5D 5D 5C 5D 5D 5D 4D NA 4D 5D 5D 4D 5D 5D 4D 4D 4C 4C 4D 5D 4D 5D 5D 4D 4D 3D 5D 4D3D 5D 4D 4D 4D 3D

Water Surface Intertidal

Mangrove Forest Reef Flats

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Habitats

Subhabitats Deep Coral Reef (>5m)

Response Options

Vege

tatio

n

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles

Habitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L5D NA 4D 4D 4D 5D 4D 2D 4D 5D 5D 5D 3D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D

3D 3D 5D 5D 5DHabitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

5D NA 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 2D 5D 5C 4C 4D 3C 4D 2D 5D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D5D 3C 4D 5D 5D


3D 3D 5D 4D 5DHabitat Scaling L R L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L R L L L L L L R L L L L L L

5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 4C 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D5D 4C 5D 5D 5D

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Shallow Coral Reef Community (<5m)

Subtidal Water Column

SAV Shallow (<5m) Deep (>5m)

Figure 4.2 Detailed focus group risk analysis results for natural recovery

ERA Consensus Workshop Virgin Islands

23



Response OptionsM

amm

als

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Rep

tiles

Vege

tatio

n

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Bird

s

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Bird

s

Rep

tiles

Mol

lusk

s

Vege

tatio

n

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Habitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L5D 4B 5D 5D 5D 5C 2D 5D 4D 5D 2D NA 4D 3D 3D 3D 3D 5D 4D 4C 4C 4C 4D 2D 5D 5D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D

2D 4D 2D 4C 2D 4DHabitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

4D 4B 5D NA 5D 5B 2D 5D 5D 5D 3D NA 4D 5D 5D 4D 4C 5D 4D 4B 4B 4B 4D 2D 5D NA NA NA NA NA NA NA4D 5D 4D 4B 2D NA

Habitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L3D 4C 4D NA NA 5D 2D 4D 4D 4D 2D NA 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4B 4C 4B 4B 4B 4D 2D 4C 4D 4D 4D 4D 2D 4D 4D

4C 4D 2D 4B 2D 3DHabitat Scaling R L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

5D 3C 5D NA 5D 5D 5C 5D 5D 5D 4D NA 4D 5D 5D 4D 5D 5D 4D 4D 4C 4C 4D 4D 4D 5D 5D 4D 4D 3C 5D 4D3C 5D 4D 4C 4D 3C

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4


Reef FlatsMangrove Forest

Habitats


Response Options

Vege

tatio

n

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles



5D NA 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 2D 5D 5C 4C 4D 3C 4D 2D 5D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D5D 3C 4D 5D 5D



5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 4C 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D5D 4C 5D 5D 5D

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Water Column

Deep (>5m)Shallow (<5m)Shallow Coral Reef Community (<5m)

Subtidal

SAV

Figure 4.3 Detailed focus group risk analysis results for on-water mechanical recovery


24



Response OptionsM

amm

als

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Rep

tiles

Vege

tatio

n

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Bird

s

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Bird

s

Rep

tiles

Mol

lusk

s

Vege

tatio

n

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Habitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L5D 4C 5D 5D 5D 5C 2D 5D 4D 5D 4D NA 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 2D 5D 5D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D

4C 4D 4D 4D 2D 4DHabitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

5D 4C 5D NA NA 5C 4D 5D 5D 5D 5D NA 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 4C 4C 4C 5D 4D 5D NA NA NA NA NA NA NA5D 5D 5D 4C 4D NA

Habitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L3D 4D 5D 5D 5D 5D 2D 4D 4D 4D 3D NA 4D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4C 4D 4C 4C 4C 4D 2D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 2D 4D 4D

4D 4D 3D 4C 3D 2DHabitat Scaling R L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

5D 4D 5D NA 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D NA 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 3D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 3D 3D 3D 5D5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 3D



Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 1

Habitats


Response Options

Vege

tatio

n

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles

Habitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L5D NA 4D 4D 4D 5D 4D 2D 4D 5D 5D 5D 3D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5C 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D


5D NA 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5C 5D 3D 5D 3D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5C 5D 5D 5C 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D5D 4D 5D 5D



5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 4C 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D5D 4C 5D 5D 5DGroup 4

Water Column

Shallow (<5m) Deep (>5m)

Group 1

Shallow Coral Reef Community (<5m)SAV

Subtidal

Group 2

Group 3

Figure 4.4 Detailed focus group risk analysis results for dispersant application at 80% effectiveness

25




Response OptionsM

amm

als

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Rep

tiles

Vege

tatio

n

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Bird

s

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Bird

s

Rep

tiles

Mol

lusk

s

Vege

tatio

n

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Epifa

una

Habitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L5D 4B 5D 5D 5D 5C 2D 5D 4D 5D 4D NA 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 5D 5D 5D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D

2D 4D 4D 4D 5D 4DHabitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

4D 4B 5D NA NA 5B 2D 5D 5D 5D 4D NA 4C 5D 5D 4D 4C 5D 4C 4B 4B 4B 4C 2D 5D NA NA NA NA NA NA NA4D 5D 4D 4C 2D NA

Habitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L3D 4D 5D 5D 5D 5D 2D 4D 4D 4D 2D NA 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4B 4C 4B 4B 4B 4D 2D 4C 4D 4D 4D 4D 3D 4D 4D

4D 4D 2D 4B 3D 3DHabitat Scaling R L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

5D 3C 5D NA 5D 5D 5C 5D 5D 5D 4D NA 4D 5D 5D 4D 5D 5D 4D 4D 4C 4C 4D 5D 4D 5D 5D 4D 4D 3D 5D 4D3D 5D 4D 4D 4D 3D



Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 1

Habitats


Response Options

Vege

tatio

n

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Vege

tatio

n

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Coe

lent

erat

es

Mol

lusk

s

Rep

tiles

Epifa

una

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles

Mam

mal

s

Bird

s

Fish

Aqua

tic A

rthro

pods

Mol

lusk

s

Plan

kton

Rep

tiles

Habitat Scaling L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L5D NA 4D 4D 4D 5D 4D 5D 4D 5D 5D 5D 3D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5C 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D


5D NA 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 3D 5D 5D 4D 4D 3D 4D 3D 5D 5D 4D 4D 4D 4D 3D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D5D 3D 4D 5D 5D



5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 4D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D 5D5D 5D 5D 5D 5DGroup 4

Water Column

Shallow (<5m) Deep (>5m)

Group 1

Shallow Coral Reef Community (<5m)

Subtidal

SAV

Group 2

Group 3

Figure 4.5 Detailed focus group risk analysis results for on-shore mechanical recovery

26



27

5.0 Summary Risk Analysis Results and Lessons Learned

Figure 5.1 presents the summary results for this workshop. Four response options were analyzed; natural recovery, on-water mechanical recovery, dispersant application at 80% effectiveness, and on-water mechanical recovery. This table is based on the detailed data in Section 4 and allows an easy comparison across response alternatives. Dispersant ap-plication showed the most improvement over natural recovery, although all options were potentially useful.

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

+ + + + + + + + + + - + + +

+ + + + + +

Sand Beach

Intertidal

Shoreline Cleanup

Natural Recovery

Mechanical Recovery

Dispersants

Rocky Shores

Mangrove Forest

Response Options

Water Surface Terrestrial

Subtidal Water Column

Shallow (<5m)

Submerged Aquatic

Vegetation

Shallow Coral Reef Community

(<5m)

Deep (>5m)

Deep Coral Reef

Community (>5 m)

Reef Flats

Legend: Red cells represent a “high” level of concern, yellow cells represent a “moderate” level of concern, and green cells represent a “limited” level of concern. There are four group scores per habitat type (columns). A + indicates reduced concern within the broad risk category, while a – indicates an increased concern within the cate-gory. Figure 5.1 Final relative risk matrix for the Virgin Islands risk assessment Based on these results and their focus group discussions, the participants developed summary conclusions in a group session at the end of the meeting. These represent the con-sensus of the participants and represent suggestions for improving oil spill response planning for the USVI and the Caribbean region in general. The Coast Guard intends to present these results to the Area Committee and to appropriate international organizations for further con-sideration.

• Now that participants are more educated on dispersant effects, organizations may want to consider dispersants as more of an “option” in the wider Caribbean.

• A “combination” of response tools should be considered rather than any single method. Organizations need to accept the reality that mechanical recovery is the pri-mary response strategy, however, the limitations of effectiveness must be considered when revising response plans and integrating its use with other response options.

• More studies on oil/dispersed oil effects on local organisms and unique environments of special concern (e.g., coral reefs, sea turtles) are needed.

• The NOAA trajectory model is useful tool for ERA, however, there is a need to link the output to GIS sources or environmental sensitivity data.


28

• Organizations should consider use of stochastic models and overall value of resources in lower probability events.

• The group endorses the further development and improvement of real-time oil/dispersed oil models.

• Scaling of the risk matrix needs to be flexible to suit the specific region (e.g., 10-30% was a broad range in which to resolve subtle changes in levels of concern for this sce-nario). The group recommends that we develop the risk matrix scaling “after” the sce-nario is presented. It is important to capture the basis for the rankings.

• The oil industry should consider more research trials in tropical waters, in order to re-solve some of the resource manager concerns; there may be suitable sites available within Caribbean waters.

• Toxicity of dispersants is still a big concern for many; this can be addressed in part through “education” processes; this outreach process needs to be coordinated within the wider Caribbean region and Latin America (not just U.S. territories); IMO or UNEP could possibly take the lead on this effort.

• In this region, multi-national agreements need to be prepared “in advance” of an ac-tual spill, in order to facilitate an integrated response during a real spill.

• In the USVI and Puerto Rico, where dispersant use pre-approval plans currently have depth and distance offshore restrictions, the RRT should discuss if depths or distances should be revised.

• Participants identified a need to challenge the environmental/scientific community to defend current concerns over dispersed oil impacts.

• Toxicity testing thresholds that were utilized for this workshop should be more closely examined to determine applicability to species of concern in this region; con-sider further scientific peer-review of this data.

• Sea turtles were a significant issue in this workshop, and there is a need for additional information on dispersed oil and oil impacts to sea turtles since they are protected species; the lack of data forced participants to rank sea turtles very conservatively.

• Because of trade-offs involved in the sensitive habitats in this region, near-shore dis-persant use should be accompanied by detailed monitoring to ensure that the associ-ated impacts can be clearly documented and evaluated “post-spill.”

• There is a need to establish education programs and appropriate regulations to en-courage the use of environmentally safe boat cleaner products.


29

6.0 References Note: References marked by an asterisk (*) were not cited in this document, but were pro-vided to workshop participants on CD-ROM (see page 7 of this report for further details). Aurand, D. (Compiler). 2003. Ecological Risk Assessment: Consensus Workshop. Environ-

mental Tradeoffs Associated with Oil Spill Response Technologies. Upper Florida Keys. A Report to USCG District 7. Ecosystem Management & Associates, Inc., Lusby, MD. 20657. Technical Report 02-03, 42 p.

Aurand, D., L. Walko and R. Pond. 2000. Developing Consensus Ecological Risk Assess-

ments: Environmental Protection in Oil Spill Response Planning. A Guidebook. United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC. 148 p. (Also Ecosystem Management & Associates, Inc. Technical Report 00-01)

*Aurand, D. 2003. Developing Consensus Ecological Risk Assessments: Environmental Pro-

tection in Oil Spill Response Planning. A Power Point ® presentation prepared for the Virgin Island Risk Assessment Workshop. Ecosystem Management & Associates, Inc., Lusby, MD.

*Boyd, J.N., J.H. Kucklick, D.K. Scholz, A.H. Walker, R.G. Pond and A. Bostrom. 2001.

Effects of Oil and Chemically Dispersed Oil in the Environment. Publication Number 4693. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC. 50 p.

*Hoff, R. (ed.). 2002. Oil Spills in Mangroves. Planning & Response Considerations. Office

of Response and Restoration, NOAA, Silver Spring MD. 70 p. Lehr, W.J., R. Overstreet, R. Jones and G. Watabayashi. 1992. ADIOS: automated data in-

quiry for oil spills, pp. 31-46. In: Environment Canada. 15th Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, June 10-12, 1992. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Mearns, A., G. Watabayashi and G. O’Connor. 2003. Using a new dispersed oil model to

support ecological risk assessment, pp. 523-530. In: American Petroleum Institute. Proceedings of the 2003 International Oil Spill Conference, April 6-11, 2003, Van-couver, BC, Canada. Publication 4730B. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2000. Characteristic Coastal Habitats:

Choosing Spill Response Alternatives. Hazardous Materials Response Division, Of-fice of Response and Restoration, NOAA, Seattle, WA. 87 p.

*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2000. Shoreline Assessment Manual.

3rd Edition. HAZMAT Report No. 2000-1. Hazardous Materials Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, NOAA, Seattle, WA. 57 p. and appendices.


30

*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2002. Shoreline Assessment Job Aid. Hazardous Materials Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, NOAA, Seattle, WA. 44 p.

*Henry, C. and P.O. Roberts. 2001. Matrix Effects on Fluorometric Monitoring and Quanti-

fication of Dispersed Oil in the Open Ocean and Coastal Environment: Results of the 1999 R/V Ferrel Research Project. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OP&R 4. National Ocean Service, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD. 33 p. and appendix.

Pond, R.G., D.V. Aurand, and J.A. Kraly (compilers). 2000. Ecological Risk Assessment

Principles Applied to Oil Spill Response Planning in the San Francisco Bay Area. California Office of Spill Prevention and Response. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

*Rogers, C.S., G. Garrison, R. Grober, Z.-M. Hillis and M.A. Franke. 1994. Coral Reef

Monitoring Manual for the Caribbean and Western Atlantic. Virgin Islands National Park, U.S. National Park Service, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. 114 p.

*Scholz, D.K., J.H. Kucklick, R. Pond, A.H. Walker, A. Bostrom and P. Fischbeck. 1999.

Fate of Oil in Marine Waters: Where Does It Go? What Does It Do? How Do Dis-persants Affect It? Publication Number 4691. American Petroleum Institute, Wash-ington, DC. 43 p.

*Scholz, D.K., J.H. Kucklick, R. Pond, A.H. Walker, A. Bostrom and P. Fischbeck. 1999. A

Decision-Maker’s Guide to Dispersants: A Review of the Theory and Operational Requirements. Publication Number 4692. American Petroleum Institute, Washing-ton, DC. 38 p.

*Scientific and Environmental Associates, Inc. 2003. Selection Guide for Oil Spill Applied

Technologies. Vol. I – Decision Making. Prepared for Regional Response Teams III and IV. Cape Charles, VA. 323 p.

*Shigenaka, G. 2000. Toxicity of Oil to Reef-Building Corals: A Spill Response Perspective.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OP&R 8. National Ocean Service, NOAA, Sil-ver Spring, MD. 87 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment.

Federal Register 63 (93) of Thursday, May 14, 1998. pp. 26846-26924. *Yender, R., J. Michel and C. Lord. 2002. Managing Seafood Safety After an Oil Spill. Haz-

ardous Materials Response Division, Office of Response and Restoration, NOAA, Seattle, WA. 72 p.


31

Appendix A

Participants


32


33

Group 1 (* group coordinator, ** not present on Friday, June 20)

Name Affiliation Phone Email Brandon, Marielle USVI Dept. of Education 340.776.4674 [email protected] Frett, Rasheed BVI PA 284.494.3535 [email protected] Hagbloom, Marianna USVI DPNR-DEP 340.773.1082 [email protected] Hawk, Eric NOAA Fisheries 727.570.5312 [email protected] Limas, Mario Secretaria Marina Mexico 56246500x1216 [email protected] Michel, Jacqui * Research Planning, Inc. 803.256.7322 [email protected] Oriol, Jean-Pierre USVI DPNR-CZM 340.774.3320x5126 [email protected] Score, Dave NOAA FKNMS 305.852.7717x35 [email protected] Slaybaugh, Scott Cayman Is. Dept. of Env. 345.949.8469 [email protected] Uberti, Bill ** USCG MSO San Juan 787.782.0496 [email protected] Viquez, Manuel Ministerio de Obras Publicas

y Transportes, Costa Rica 506.233.5022 [email protected]

Group 2 (* group coordinator, ** not present on Friday, June 20, *** not present on June 19 or 20)

Name Affiliation Phone Email Acosta, Ivan USCOE, Jacksonville, FL 904.232.1693 [email protected] Cunningham, Mark** USCG HQ (MOR) 202.267.2877 [email protected] Gonzalez, Gabino REMPEITC (IMO) 599.9.461.4012 [email protected] Henry, Charlie * NOAA SSC (Gulf of Mexico) 504.589.4414 [email protected] Kelly, Jason USCG MSO San Juan 787.706.2444 [email protected] Lane, Christine *** Clean Caribbean Coop. 954.983.9880 Reed, Leonard USVI DPNR 340.774.3320 Riuta, Marieth Merchant Marine Honduras 504.221.0721 [email protected] Rodriguez, Mike Caribbean Maritime Inst. 876.924.8150 [email protected] Roldan, Michael USCG MSO San Juan 787.706.2440 [email protected] Group 3 (*group coordinator)

Name Affiliation Phone Email Berlanga, Judy * USCG D7 305.415.6873 [email protected] Campbell, Rob USCG Christiansted 340.772.5557 [email protected] Dickenson, Courtney USVI DPNR 340.773.1082 [email protected] Fuentes, Jorge Empaesa Portoaria Quetzal,

Guatemala 502.881.1555 [email protected]

Kamphaus, Robert NOAA FKNMS 305.292.0311 [email protected] Lopez, Felix US FWS 787.851.7297x26 [email protected] Mercer, Laura Lee BVI Min. of Nat. Resour. 284.494.5681 [email protected] Purnell, Karen ITOPF 44.207.621.1255 [email protected] Rodriguez, Angel US EPA San Juan 787.289.7104 [email protected] Suarez Velez, Mayra USVI Mar. Advisory Svc. 340.693.1392 [email protected]


34

Group 4 (*group coordinator, ** present only on Tuesday, June 17)

Name Affiliation Phone Email Benggio, Brad NOAA SSC (Caribbean) 305.530.7931 [email protected] Furchette, Carlos * USVI DPNR 340.773.5774 [email protected] Gasterzoro, Gilberto Panama Canal Authority 507.276.6678 [email protected] Hulse, Jeavon Belize Dept. of Environ. 501.822.2816 [email protected] Mearns, Alan NOAA HAZMAT 206.526.6336 [email protected] Pierce, Judy USVI DPNR 340.775.6762 [email protected] Reinert, John ** USCG MSO St. Thomas 340.776.3497 [email protected] Richardson, Bingley BVI Ports Authority 284.494.3435 Rodriguez, Rick REMPEITC (IMO) 599.9.461.1996 [email protected] Yender, Ruth NOAA SSC (Pacific) 206.526.6087 [email protected]

Documents

Ecological Risk Assessment: Consensus Workshop Islands ERA...lons) of Venezuelan crude oil (Furrial) approximately five miles north of Vir-gin Gorda Island, under conditions which